January 28, 2026: The February election might see fewer “loyalty votes” among the conservatives.
The “brand loyalty” voting pattern was common among die-hard fans of political parties in previous elections. This kind of decision-making prevailed among conservative voters more than the other side, contributing significantly to the fact that Thaksin Shinawatra’s party always edged out the Democrat Party in electoral contests. Conservative votes were always split, with a substantial number going for parties they loved regardless of the high risk of handing the victory to the enemies.
This time a very large part of the conservative movement is trying to change that. Voters who, for example, unconditionally love the Democrat Party or the United Thai Nation Party the most are being urged to vote their head instead of their heart. This strategic voting might require them to pick Bhumjaithai, which they never supported before but which has a far better chance against the People’s Party.
It also means the Democrat Party’s comeback attempt can be stymied. Abhisit Vejjajiva’s return to the helm has triggered strong hopes, but even some big-name fans have admitted that the stronger the Democrat revival, the weaker the Bhumjaithai’s bid. The same goes for the other conservative parties, all of them expecting to be politically relevant post-election.
The Democrat Party is actually in a no man’s land. It cannot be entirely called a conservative party considering that Abhisit was at the forefront of criticism against the military rule under Prayut Chan-ocha. But it cannot be regarded as anti-establishment, either.
Whatever it is, the “unity vote” campaign among the conservatives could more or less affect it negatively. While it is obviously difficult for the strategic “unity” voting to materialise in the home stretch, when the need to win overrides everything including friendship and ideology, a good number of voters will be ambivalent when it comes to party-list decisions.
Guns don’t just shoot in America; they confuse
January 27, 2026: The Alex Pretti tragedy represents gun double standards at many levels in the United States.
Amid the spreading public fury described by a deputy attorney general as a “powder keg”, a big irony lurks. Who in America, Democrats or Republicans, fear guns more and who support them more?
He was shot dead by a rightist government that everyone assumes is supportive of citizens’ right to own firearms, while the man seemingly was having on his body a pistol that the left never wants people to carry freely.
“So, the righties are anti-gun and the lefties are pro-gun now?” one X user asked.
It is a very legitimate and relevant question. The ICE agents, working for the government, should have acknowledged that guns kept in holsters on citizens’ bodies were highly possibly for self-defence. From witnesses’ videos, the Pretti case looks like it. He was shot apparently after his holstered handgun was removed while being manhandled and clearly overpowered.
The Democrats, while denouncing the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) action, were in effect supporting a citizen’s right to have such a weapon in public.
Now, protests are still spreading and growing in some places. Some leftist protesters might arm themselves for “self-defence” and rightist commandos will have to practice restraints that their pro-gun advocates always say everyone naturally has. Both sides somehow will have a dose of their own medicine.
When the two political parties debate gun control next time, it will be absolutely interesting.
And the most-audacious election promise award goes to …
January 26, 2026: Rival contenders from other parties are not even close.
There are qualified challengers, of course, but they are from the same party, New Alternative. Its leader’s promise to allow any Thai woman to have up to four legal husbands wins the award unofficially with ease.
Everyone agrees that Mongkolkit, the leader of the New Alternative Party, just wanted to be in the news, and even carelessly so. The four-husband promise goes against the Thai (or even the world’s) culture, may create social disturbances and no politician in his or her right mind (except Mongkolkit himself obviously) will give the signature to support such a legislative draft.
“I’m not having a childish imagination,” he told reporters while surrounded by cheering students in Phitsanulok hours ago. “Every policy has been submitted to the Election Commission which gave its approval.”
In addition to the policy to legalise any woman having four husbands at the same time, he wants to set up a Space Ministry, buy nuclear weapons from the United States and might push for dinosaur cloning. The husband initiative edges them all because a Space Ministry, while wild, looks likelier years from now with the exponential technological progress around the world, and who knows about the cloning and nuclear weapons?
The distant chasing pack includes the United Thai Nation Party, which is proposing the idea of a prison in the middle of the sea to put big-name drug mafias in so that they would not be able to contact the “outside world”.
The Thai Pakdee Party’s idea to execute anyone found guilty for corruption worth more than Bt100 million within 15 days and there can’t be any appeal whatsoever is also outrageous, although it is not funny and might go a long way in tackling an unsolvable problem in the Thai society.
Should lottery policy be in election platform?
January 25, 2026: Basically, anything a political party promises can go into its election campaign.
It’s up to the voters to buy it, and it’s up to the electoral authorities to later rule whether the party keeps its promise if it’s in the position to implement the idea, and what punishment will be handed down if it backtracks.
Pheu Thai’s “Make Nine New Millionaires Everyday” promise will practically keep Thais on edge every single day if the party is in the government. It will be lottery day every day instead of just twice a month currently.
Blatant. Questionable. (If it truly works politically, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, with brilliant publicists at their disposals, should have come up with it already. They would not have waited for the “third world” to initiate it.) Risky. (What if anticipated tax increases don’t happen?) Controversial. (For instance, will lot drawing that takes place daily affects productivity as it can constantly obsess a large number of Thais who should have focused on their work and overtime? Is it right to encourage tax payment using the concept of gambling?)
Creative. (At least more than 3,200 Thais can get Bt1 million richer every year thanks to the cutthroat politics that has been depressing or stressing out the nation on a daily basis. Something for the lucky Thai citizens, their families, relatives and friends to celebrate at long last won’t hurt. It's a payback.)
Intriguing. (What will the Orange say about it since tax money at least would go more to the people and less to submarine purchases? And what if a Pheu Thai government implements it but fails to be in the administration after next? Putting the idea into practice is hard, but cancelling it once it has been there is harder.)
Funny. (Don’t claim you are not chuckling.)
Potentially uproarious. (The chance of it happening is very low, but what if two persons in the same household get the lucky draws? Also, what if Bt1 million given by the government is wasted in a casino or for illegal sex service?)
Challenging. (Constitutional experts must be working at full throttle trying to figure out possible violations of electoral rules. This is a good brain exercise.)
Here’s one big argument FOR the idea: If lottery is bad, how come the Thai government in effect has long been the ultimate lotto bookie? All Pheu Thai does is increasing the frequency.
It must have come from Thaksin Shinawatra, who is having all the time in the world to think up outrageous plans right now. And if it did come from him, this is a good way to say "See? I have never been away."
Thais should take ‘Trump invitation’ to another level
January 24, 2026: A global trend is happening in which “anti-Trump” is becoming a political platform, so what about Thailand?
With a general election two weeks away, maybe pollsters, or interviewers, or reporters should seek competing Thai politicians’ opinions on things like the Board of Peace and Greenland.
Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has smartly avoided the difficult subject of whether Thailand would join US President Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” and/or the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict”, saying the matter should be decided by the post-election government, but that is too convenient. Anutin's remark that he understood the "good intention" shown by the White House and felt honoured about the invitation also came across as "too diplomatic".
Trump-bashing is what everyone else outside Thailand does, but that is not the reason why Thai politicians should stop being quiet about it. Truth is relationship with the United States is a highly-important public interest issue, concerning every country’s political, economic, moral and diplomatic directions, and Thais need to know what their politicians think. Already, politicians somewhere else are winning or losing elections on Trump-related platforms, and that trend will only intensify after Davos.
The Board of Peace is a good topic to start. Some allies are boycotting it. Israel has been seemingly prioritised over Palestine in the structure. Is the concept going against the international law? Will such a board negatively affect the relevance of the United Nations? Is what has happened in Gaza a genocide, or an unavoidable security operation with massive collateral damage because innocent women and children were used as human shields? What is more serious _ the Gaza deaths, injuries and bombing or the threat to annex Greenland?
Thais will know a lot about their politicians from their answers to those questions.
Chuwit’s criticism underlines Orange dilemma
January 23, 2026: The People’s Party is having two unpleasant choices.
Pushing ahead with aggression and extremism and the “isolation” could continue, whereas “adapting to realities” would provoke taunting from someone like Chuwit Kamolvasit.
In his latest online post, Chuwit does not ease up on the Orange. To be more specific, he focused his attacks on Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, dubbed the “spiritual leader” of the People’s Party although many critics also charge he is its top financier as well.
Chuwit does not exactly criticize the party’s extreme ideology. Most of his criticism is directed at Thanathorn, who he said has been changed by politics instead of the other way around.
According to Chuwit, Thanathorn has become a “conventional” politician ready to be “flexible” to the point of flip-flopping and doing whatever necessary to grab power. The founder of the Future Forward Party, now the People’s Party, has been behind key, questionable decisions of the Orange that are leaving die-hard supporters confounded and some of them scattering, Chuwit said.
He blames it all on Thanathorn _ the “Us or them” one day and “We need to be in the government come what may” the next; and the “With us there is no grey” then and “We are the only one that expels grey people” now.
Thanathorn has invested too much to leave the People’s Party alone, so he has sowed confusion about its directions, Chuwit, a former Orange supporter, said.
To a certain extent, Chuwit is right. But he fails to mention that Thanathorn’s strange mix of ideology and pragmatism is now in the party with or without him.
So determined to spread and implement its ideology, the People’s Party will need all the help it can get and do anything necessary including making Anutin Charnvirakul an interim prime minister. The current “leadership” of the Orange party can figure that out itself. It doesn’t need Thanathorn to tell it what to do.
And it doesn’t need guys like Chuwit to tell them that doing so might alienate zealous supporters.
World changing, but not for the better
January 22, 2026: The question isn’t whether the US-Europe breakup is mendable, but why Gaza still pales beside Greenland.
US President Donald Trump and his increasingly disillusioned “allies” are going at each other in a hostile manner never seen before because a European territory is at stake, not because innocent women and children have been slaughtered in great numbers somewhere in the Middle East.
A seismic shift is happening geopolitically, but what is dictating the development is anything but moral. World orders are being reshaped by the same old factors _ vested interests, strategic locations, whims of the powers-that-be, and tendencies to overlook or downplay things that are bigger but “far away” from us.
No disrespect to Canadian and European leaders coming out to strongly defend their dignities and sovereignties against the unspeakable and inexplicable intimidation of Trump’s White House, and Greenland and its people deserve full sympathy in trying to maintain their independence, but Davos shouldn’t be the place to just decry actions that affect western interest. It seems weird, if not shameful, that the World Economic Forum is on fire just because of verbal threats to annex, not because of actual killings and flattening of neighborhoods that have really happened on a grand scale.
Trump is out of control, and the world would be better without him, critics and opponents say. But to be fair, he may be unmasking everyone, in the process exposing a sad truth that what we perceive as drastically-changing geopolitics will not be for the better.
Chaturon has to take one lane or another
January 21, 2026: It’s risky to show off legal knowledge one minute and say “Oops, my bad” the next.
Just when he deleted a controversial clip of him and boy football stars promoting the “Yes” vote for charter rewrite, Pheu Thai’s big gun Chaturon Chaisang published a Facebook post saying it had to be against the law for the government to indicate that certain politicians were facing arrests, especially during the election time.
His Facebook post says the government hints could affect the images of some parties and pressure state officials in the justice system to make the indication come true.
That was a sound argument brimming with knowledge of legal subtlety, but the point is that this is the same man who just days ago gathered boy footballers not old enough to vote and made them shout “On February 8, mark (I) approve”.
The general election day is also a referendum day that will decide whether Thailand will have a charter rewrite.
Whereas campaigns for and against writing a new Constitution can be done, using boys to promote a political cause is highly controversial to say the least, and the Election Commission has already been asked to determine if that was legal, and, if not, what penalties have to be handed down.
Public uproars prompted Chaturon to delete the clip. Whether he should also make the Facebook post disappear as well is purely about his image, having nothing to do with fines or party dissolution.
(Photo from his Facebook)
Changing views about World Economic Forum
January 20, 2026: Nothing lasts forever, not even the prestigious reputation of the annual Davos event.
It’s that time of the year again, when rich people looking over world economic orders gather in Switzerland for discussions and agreements that would shape how the rest of the planet should behave so that what the minority group considers the suitable global environment can be sustained. But what takes place in Davos now is against a drastically unprecedented backdrop.
At the foremost of that backdrop is US President Donald Trump. Where should we start? Let's just say previous World Economic Forums looked at American participation for guiding signals, but this time Trump-led US government representatives will be looked at the way party gossipers look at their targets. Greenland is on everyone’s mind, and Trump has thrown more gasoline into the fire by saying so officially that since he has not been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, nobody should cry if he does it his way to acquire the territory.
Europe is not pleased, and that affects the credibility of the WEF tremendously. The European nations’ threat to go into a tariff war with America over the latter’s intention to economically coerce the former into compliance over Greenland means the world may be changing upside down. A US-Europe showdown can ruin the WEF’s perceived western unity beyond repair.
But Trump or no Trump, the WEF's image has been on the way down already, albeit gradually until he came along. The organisers and participants who had used to be outstanding preachers of non-luxurious lifestyle not harmful to the world were struggling to fight off charges of massively-corrupted luxury even before he was re-elected president of the United States.
Serious allegations rocked its founder, Klaus Schwab, after whistleblowers accused him of blatant life elegance acquired at least partly from company money or funds. The shocking claims include, allegedly, manipulating researches, using company funds to pay for private massages, and asking junior staff to withdraw thousands of dollars on his behalf.
So, Trump is coming and Schwab is missing. Call it double jeopardy if you will. The WEF has opened its annual meeting in the Swiss resort town of Davos for the first time without its founder. Thousands of political and business leaders still gather, though, but amid heightened geopolitical tension and declining credibility of the even they attend.
That reputational decline seemed inevitable Schwab or no Schwab. Even before the investigation officially began against the founder, poor people’s low regards of the WEF were growing. They deemed the forum as too elitist and hypocritical.
Sarcastic online posts have been numerous over the past few days. This is one of the most hard-hitting on X: “The World Economic Forum begins today when globalist ********* fly to Davos on their private jets to eat Wagyu steak together in five star (atmosphere), while making plans for everyone else to ride bicycles, eat insects and live in pods.”
Ones may argue that it’s too contemptuous and unfair to those who “earned” the private jets, but this sentiment is anything but superficial and limited. The WEF will never be looked at the same way ever again.
Is “Super G” fever minor or mega?
January 19, 2026: To give someone a rating, ask the opponents, not the admirers.
It’s debatable how big the Suphajee Suthumpun “fever” is. Bhumjaithai must be hoping it is serious and widespread enough to tip the electoral scales in its favour. The People’s Party, the reigning champion, must be wishing it is just a conservative bluff that is making her look scarier than she really is.
But no matter how much the People’s Party wants to play it down, it appears to be admitting one thing, that this female rival seems to be packed with qualities. Her recent election debates with Sirikanya Tansakul did not benefit the People’s Party’s economic flagbearer to say the least, while Suphajee has been praised for her polite, friendly demeanour and economic management knowledge.
Emerging from the debates, Sirikanya herself did not have bad things to say about Suphajee, and, by and large, the People’s Party has steered clear of the businesswoman while stepping up political attacks on Bhumjaithai. Even pro-Orange media personalities have done the same.
Suphajee won the debates comfortably through unofficial public voting carried out by media channels or online influencers. Comments were overwhelmingly in her favour, which is remarkable, because, as some well-known observers note, “comment mobilization” is not Bhumjaithai’s strong point.
So far, only negativities are centred around legal technicality regarding her parliamentary eligibility. The opponents know, however, that drumming up her past voting records or status within Bhumjaithai may create a reverse effect and backfire badly.
A fever is definitely developing, according to the observers, although they agree that how far-reaching it is remains to be seen. Bhumjaithai is using her a lot in its election campaign, partly because her admirers say she looks anything but a career politician. That can be a selling point, for now, especially in Bangkok where voters are fickle, love unorthodox things and never picked Bhumjaithai before.
Don’t underestimate the power of a “fever” in Thai politics. The People’s Party knows that better than anyone. It unexpectedly swept the 2023 election thanks largely to the skyrocketing popularity of Pita Limcharoenrat, although he was a new face at the time.
Like Pita then, Suphajee is a new kid in political town now. Opponents know that this kind of phenomena is the most dangerous thing. Before Pita, Chamlong Srimuang came out of nowhere to steal a Bangkok gubernatorial election several decades ago. A more recent example is Pita’s predecessor, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, who drew big crowds and big shrieks wherever he went despite being virtually unknown politically just months before his emergence. As a result, the then newly-formed Future Forward Party immediately became a force to be reckoned with.
The term “Super G” comes from a playful pronunciation of her name, Suphajee. It wouldn’t have come into existence, though, if she had performed badly in the eyes of the Thai public, in both the Anutin Cabinet and at election debates featuring senior figures of main political parties.
She was brought into the stopgap Anutin Cabinet as the commerce minister. As the Bhumjaithai government wouldn’t last long anyway, the prime minister managed to include her, an outsider, in his administrative team because he didn’t have to care about dirty horse-trading that normally plagued every Cabinet formation. He now can't live without her.
Four months ago, the question was “Who is this woman?” Today, it is “Should the People’s Party start worrying about her?”
Nobel Prize doesn’t mean ‘Do whatever you want’
January 18, 2026: Maria Corina Machado the political warrior can beamingly thank the US. Maria Corina Machado the Peace Prize winner can’t.
The Nobel Peace Prize constrains, not liberates. It limits ones’ options, taking away violent means as a short cut for any change they desire. It does not give you the freedom to, say, selfie with a broad smile with a man who bombed your country and abducted its leader whom you may not like. It even obliges you to condemn the bomber.
Donald Trump, as a superpower who can do whatever he likes, can help Machado using guns, troops, war planes and explosives. It’s a lot more complicated for her. Even if she had not been awarded the Peace Prize in October last year, it would have still been a big question whether she should thank him so publicly.
Now that she’s the latest recipient of the peace award, "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy", it’s a no-brainer whether she should do that.
There is no need to give her any more reason why she should have stayed away, but here’s one anyway: The man standing and grinning with her in that picture has vowed to annex Greenland against its people’s will, and is threatening to raise tariffs against countries opposing his plan, which has so much to do with military strategies.
The Nobel laureate gave her prize to Trump at the White House on Thursday “in recognition [of] his unique commitment [to] our freedom”. Several hours later, Trump thanked her on Truth Social, saying she “presented me with her Nobel peace prize for the work I have done. Such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect.”
Political leaders in and outside the United States have asked why Trump, who welcomed her presentation of the peace prize to him, seemed willing and happy to take credit for what other people did. She has to be asked a much bigger question, however.
Partly right and partly wrong
January 17, 2026: Rukchanok Srinork is correct in saying that Thailand has been plagued with a great ill fortune.
But, in a highly-controversial and much-publicised Facebook post, the star of the People's Party may be wrong in blaming it all on the “rulers”. She should have said that the entire political apparatus _ those who rule and doing whatever necessary to stay in power, those seeking to rule and trying everything necessary to grab power, those taking advantage, those abusing justice, those playing victims, those refusing to compromise, those amplifying the bad deeds of others, those turning blind eyes to wrongdoings of the same sides, those reciting public or national interest every time they want to push personal, secret agendas _ is all responsible.
It’s a deep-rooted misfortune. She is right about it. But there is more to it when it comes to why the national progress has been stalled, why justice has been distorted, why good ideas are demonised and bad ones ignored, why legislation focuses more on political opponents than man on the street, why capable people cannot work in the government together, why even the opposition bloc in Parliament is full of those harbouring clashing ideologies, why nepotism is a common strategy, and why every election is never the end of it, with what is wrongly called “voice from heaven” just resetting the stage for a new mischievous showdown.
When it rains, it pours (Part III)
January 16, 2026: It can get worse for the People's Party.
Detractors’ sarcastic online postings have been abundant, but that is something to be expected when desertion is substantial. However, in the wake of an arrest in connection with a “grey” business, a party member warning publicly that “there may be more” and “we should brace for impact” is rare and tells a thousand words. The man who posted that online did not seem to imply political mudslinging, instead asking the party to be prepared and its questionable characters to come clean publicly before allegations come from someone else.
The posted message has been curiously deleted, but not after it has been captured by the party’s political rivals.
Another hard-hitting online message has come from someone in political exile overseas. Pavin Chachavalpongpun, who normally posted rebellious statements, has turned against the People’s Party following the recent arrests of its electoral candidates for alleged involvement in illegal businesses. He has strongly attacked the party’s human resource recruitment, deeming it a weak point that might even cost it the election.
One academic in Tak, whose People’s Party election candidate was arrested two days ago, implied that complaints about the suspect’s background had been sent to the party all the time but apparently no evident action was taken.
A former pro-Orange activist, meanwhile, also warned online that some Bangkok politicians of the People’s Party not in the news at the moment could be within the striking distance of the crime-busting authorities.
The conservative media are having a heyday, showing photos of Ratchapong Soisuwan, who has been arrested for alleged involvement with online gambling, posing with People’s Party leaders in every news clip.
Well-known activist Chuwit Kamolvisit, who himself was involved in “grey” practices when he operated businesses decades ago, is criticising the People’s Party daily. Calling himself “Godfather of grey”, he claims he knows every grey activity when he sees one.
People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut has done the best he could, saying his camp did not process the data and investigative tools the authorities have that led to the action against Ratchapong. But the excuse is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it could help soften the blow. On the other hand, critics would legitimately ask how the party could investigate others now that it has admitted it is not sufficiently equipped to even investigate its own staff.
‘No grey’ campaign not such a good idea now
January 15, 2026: Bad news is an Orange man’s arrest for alleged involvement with gambling racketeering didn’t raise many eyebrows.
An earlier arrest of a People’s Party’s election applicant shocked the Thai public and sowed seeds of doubt in the apparently-growing determination to eliminate political connections with “grey businesses” that involved massive underground transactions, bribery and vice. The latest arrest, again involving an electoral member of the biggest party, may have shattered the fragile optimism.
For a while, the People’s Party’s “No grey” campaign looked a smart strategy, coming at a time when the Orange camp needed a new selling point after the “three uncles” from the military who had influenced Thai politics left the centre stage. Also, the Thai-Cambodian border tension helped the Orange’s rival, the Bhumjaithai Party, politically, which made “No grey” appear a shrewd counterattack.
The arrests of Boonyarit Raorungrot, who was seized just after registering as an election candidate for alleged drug-related money laundering, and Ratchapong Soisuwan, whom the party has fielded in Tak but the police captured hours ago, are changing everything. To add to that, another Orange man had been ruled guilty by the lower court of using a fake document to escape military conscription.
Ratchapong strongly denied charges that he ran a gambling web, insisting that he was a betting customer at best. Police insisted he was arrested after thorough investigation into his activities and his wealth.
The People’s Party did not have many options for its strategic retreat, resorting to the Boonyarit excuse that it could not possibly have known. This time, though, the party was more vocal in implying that the Ratchapong case might have been politically motivated.
Allusion to pre-election political tactics will have to clash with police “evidence”, however, and could invoke the devastating “What if he has not been arrested?” question. Moreover, this last case will amplify Boonyarit’s arrest, making it look like anything but a one-off. The conservatives, the People’s Party’s key rivals, are mocking the “No grey” campaign, pointing to the fact that Ratchapong had been in Parliament over the past few years.
Another problem is Ratchapong’s case is struggling to be the biggest news. That might help if the party wants it to go away quickly. But that also is a bad sign, as it seems to suggest lukewarm public expectations when it comes to grey or no grey. The People’s Party used to be immune to the notion that nothing can surprise the Thai populace when politicians are concerned, but not any more. When nobody is really shocked by Ratchapong’s arrest (big news, yes, but really shocking, no), the party has to be really worried.
Flipping out
January 14, 2026: A red card if a footballer does it. The Thai EC would ban a candidate. In the US, just a mockery.
The question is not if Donald Trump should have shown the middle-finger to a heckler in public while visiting a Michigan Ford plant. The question is why there should be any question at all.
Bigger, far more important things are all around Trump. The situation in Iran. The on-going Venezuela development. The court ruling on his obscene tariffs. The ICE shooting. The local economy. Ukraine. BRICS. Israel. China. Greenland. National debt. Irreconcilably divided American population. All-over-the-place Congress. Europe. NATO.
And the Epstein files. Which arguably had something to do with the shouts admonishing him as a “pedophile protector” while he toured the Ford complex. A celebrity news and gossip site shared a short video featuring the US president’s flustered response to someone heckling off-screen, during which he seemed the flash the middle finger.
Critics and media opponents are making fun of that, but Trump had done things a lot more controversial. In a matter of hours, everyone will move on.
There is no point debating, as one side will argue that an elected public figure should never do that to anyone let alone a potential voter who has every right, and the other will say everyone including the president of the United States has an “equal” and “human right” to express anger and frustration as long as it doesn’t harm anybody else. (If democracy is equality, this is it, the latter group is saying. Why can’t the most powerful man in America do what any other man can? And a government leader publicly telling someone to get lost is at least better than shooting dead anti-government protesters.)
While we all should let it lie, a little attention to a White House statement calling the heckler a “lunatic” won’t hurt. That’s a curious term, isn’t it?
Trump terrified
January 13, 2026: No, it’s not what Iran possibly has militarily. It takes an unarmed man with a gavel to scare the US president.
Donald Trump has warned of an economic and financial disaster for the United States if the Supreme Court this week says his sweeping global tariffs on what his country imports are illegal.
It’s a warning of an apprehensive man, who has bombed Iran and Venezuela, abducted the latter country’s leader, pondered armed intervention in the unrest-plagued former, threatened to annex Greenland, intimidated a few other countries and looked set to confront a European military alliance that America helped found and remains instrumental in.
“If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” he has just written on Truth Social. He could mean to frighten his US critics as well, saying America would be on the hook to pay back "many Hundreds of Billion of Dollars" in revenue so far collected from the new tariffs and "Trillions" more in private investments.
Add that to national debt and everyone in the United States could have a second thought. Trump actually has a point. America can end up in huge trouble, with $38 trillion and growing already a legitimate debt that nobody knows how it can realistically repay.
American courts have snubbed Trump before but he never even flinched. Not this time, though. His Truth Social post, however, is also a bluff. “Rule against me if you dare. If I’m going down, I’ll take everyone with me” appears to be what is between his lines.
Funny things about the election
January 12, 2026: What if, say, Pheu Thai wins more seats than the last election but fewer popular votes?
And what if the People’s Party wins more popular votes than the last election but fewer overall seats this time?
What if Bhumjaithai wins more seats but still lose? And what if the People’s Party lose many seats but still win?
Democracy as we know it is funny, isn’t it? Let’s take it to the global scale. When America invaded Iraq after 9/11, the invasion was decided and carried out by a US government supported by the majority of Americans but the military action was opposed by the United Nations which was represented by the majority of the world.
Now, let’s move up the timeline. It’s likely that the majority of those who voted for Donald Trump as their president did not agree with the attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its controversial leader. Is it democracy or abuse of a democratic mandate?
Back to Thailand, should a party celebrate if it wins more constituency seats this time but loses a few millions of popular votes? And vice versa.
Thai parties have either increased or lowered expectations. Bhumjaithai, for example, is hoping to win more seats in both categories. So are the Democrats. The People’s Party, on the other hand, may be expecting lower counts but it may still win, in which case a major question will emerge.
What standard should be used to judge what Thais want?
It’s the same if the People’s Party scrapes a win but other parties gang up against it, becoming a government and beating off policies it advocates. It’s allowed, yes. But is it fair?
Winner-takes-all politics, especially in a cutthroat environment, is always complicated, many times to the point of ignoring justifiable wishes of many people.
‘Undecided’ group gets smaller, and Abhisit gets sexier
January 11, 2026: The latest NIDA poll has so much to say.
First thing first, it confirms what everyone feels, that the People’s Party is a leader with tired legs, but it’s debatable whether the diminishing distance to the finish line is enough for the one attempting to catch him, the Bhumjaithai Party.
The Orange is still the general election favourite, leading in both prime ministerial nomination and party popularity categories. Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, with 24.76% support, is ahead of Anutin Charnvirakul, who has surged to 20.8%.
A total of 2,500 eligible voters have been surveyed by the pollsters last week.
Natthaphong in front is not unexpected, but neither is Anutin in the second place. The latter getting ever closer, though, is the thing to watch.
The party popularity category mirrors the individual popularity. The People’s Party remains the most popular at 30.48% followed by Bhumjaithai at 22.32%. The gap is a bit wider than the prime ministerial nomination category, and Natthaphong apparently should be more worried than Anutin.
(The party popularity category has two sub-sections. The first is constituency election section and the second is the party-list section. Since the numbers are close, let’s just talk about party-list numbers here to prevent confusion.)
The undecided groups are smaller than previous polls in both categories, 14.12% in the individual category and 7.80% in the party-list category. In other words, more people are unsure about Natthaphong and Anutin than about the People’s Party and Bhumjaithai.
Smaller but still influential. The undecided can dictate the election because the group remains big enough to either make the People’s Party get farther or Bhumjaithai get closer or even edge it.
Another remarkable finding is the resurgence of the Democrats, who as a party got 12.56% support. Their leader Abhisit Vejjajiva was backed by 12.12%, fourth after Natthaphong, Anutin and Undecided. Abhisit was even more popular than the main Pheu Thai PM candidate, Yodchanan Wongsawat (9.64%).
If the findings are correct, Abhisit will be the new beautiful boy in town after the election and all the girls will fight tooth and nail to be his date.
Nothing more assured than “Half-Half”
January 10, 2026: It’s safe to say that whatever happens after the election, the co-payment scheme will still be safe.
Bhumjaithai, if it leads the next government, will definitely continue it for obvious reasons. Pheu Thai would not only continue it, but the party would also “upgrade” the economic stimulus by raising the government contribution from 50% to 70%.
The People’s Party, a big contender to be the core of the post-election government, will pick up where Bhumjaithai left off if the Orange was in the next administration.
These camps are expected to remain the three biggest parties after the election. And as for the others, they wouldn’t have enough power to resist even if they wanted to do so. In reality, nobody would attack the co-payment programme as that is tantamount to a pre-election political suicide.
Everyone is announcing, through rally speeches and election posters, that the programme will be definitely supported. The scheme, initiated under the much-maligned Prayut government during the Covid-19 crisis, is a rare tangible and constructive return of taxpayers’ money to the Thai public. This is why its future is looking much more secured than those of, for example, charter amendment and promised crackdown on corruption.
Great political show many will find boring
January 9, 2026: Anyone knows what happens on air between February 2 and 6?
Political parties certainly do because it concerns them directly. The general public, however, may be a lot less eager and unaware, as politicians talking about policies are bland, unlike when they drag one another through the mud.
But the pre-election rule obliging parties to outline their spending plans straightforwardly on air is a great idea. What is presented will be written in stone as public commitments. Beautiful or outrageous promises will be recorded and the givers will be punished politically and possibly legally if they fall through. Parties will in fact have to demonstrate how smart, prepared, and visionary they are.
Presentation outlines will have to be sent to the Election Commission in advance, with the deadline being January 19 (meaning fabulous ideas are hard, if not impossible, to copy).
The Election Commission has announced that ideas not requiring money won’t be allowed to be presented. This takes away ideological matters like charter amendment. It also will enable the public to evaluate parties’ plans realistically, as all tangible policies will need money more or less in order to get implemented.
It is expected that the EC will soon announce channels through which the ideas would be aired.
One month before election, watch ‘Big Joke’ case
January 8, 2026: Who are “greyer” than the Thai police, at a time when “grey” is being politicised like never before?
When an irony has become very big, it’s no longer seen as an irony. There was a time when disgraced Pol Gen Surachate Hakparn was just days away from being nominated the police chief of Thailand, but look at the charges against him now. Whether he is innocent or not does not matter. If he is, the omnipresent system that is destroying him is rotten. If he is guilty as alleged, we can’t even say Thailand dodged a bullet, because there are surely many more like him hiding behind “to serve and protect” and crawling inside the Police Department
He and his opponents are accusing each other of trying to bribe their way out of criminal charges. The bribes we are talking about are not a few banknotes traffic offenders pay to escape tickets. They are, allegedly, huge enough to keep top police officials and those in the justice system investigating them turning their blind eyes to other bribery activities.
Bribes are feeding bribes in Thailand, and Surachate’s political allegiance could come into play in the days ahead, as his issue involves important information, against others or himself, regarding the “grey” businesses which are a big theme on the streets and in the social media at the moment.
Thais are never in doubt how far up corruption goes in the justice system, and how it plagues bribery busters themselves. Recent developments just confirmed everything. They are only special because a general election is around the corner.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has recently decided to remove commissioner Ekkawit Watchawalku, whose name has emerged in a bribery case linked to Surachate, accused by the Central Investigation Bureau of attempting to bribe him (Ekkawit) with gold bars worth about 10 million baht, allegedly in a bid to escape charges of malfeasance in office for allegedly accepting bribes from online gambling networks.
As we can see, one alleged bribery allegedly led to another.
Disclosures or bombshell allegations can significantly affect the outcome of the February election.
Maduro and his wife have to be guilty
January 7, 2026: What if China bombed Taiwan, kidnapped its leader, put him on trial in Beijing, only for Chinese judges to acquit him?
This is a hypothetical situation. The last scenario is scary enough to deter everyone. Well, almost everyone in fact. Donald Trump snatching Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, out of their country and putting them through a trial in America is already outrageous to the point of unbearable, but even that will pale beside an acquittal.
America has to be absolutely sure it will win a clear-cut guilty verdict, as anything shorter than that will immeasurably amplify what Venezuela has had to go through a few days ago. The explosions, the deaths, the injuries, the damage, the trauma of Venezuelan citizens, their anxiety, their shame, their humility, the fright of that country’s political community and the worries of the whole world all cry out for just one outcome of the couple’s trial.
If they are found innocent, consequences will be unimaginable.
In other words, America has no other choice. Its justice system will have to find the couple guilty, a verdict that the entire world will mock, because of the process that leads to it and because the other remaining scenario of letting them walk home free will put an already shattered image in a grinder.
Some ideas for pre-election debate in Thailand
January 6, 2026: The only ones yet to comment on the US-Venezuela saga are Thai politicians.
Ask them what they think and cast the vote for the people who give the most sensible answers in your opinions.
It’s not an IQ test. It’s not a hypothesis as it has actually happened. It’s extremely important to the future governance of Thailand. It will prove, or display, or expose one’s genuine ideological stand beyond doubt.
It involves the issue of national sovereignty. It concerns what ones think about the international law. It has to do with who should have the powers to arrest, prosecute and judge others. For Thai politics, where charges of political persecution are abundant, this is an issue most relevant.
Last but not least, it’s a sensitive topic plagued with conflicts of interest, and political figures or even some in the media have avoided giving opinions about it, but the controversy is too big to ignore, as the answers will go a long way in truthfully showing what kind of a person he or she is, especially those in politics who usually depend on rhetoric or blatant lies in order to thrive.
There are terms like “political sensitivity” that are often resorted to when ones don’t want to cross those more powerful, who can make lives miserable for people who disagree with them. But there is also the moment of truth, which separates the brave from the cowards.
Now that we are at it, ask the Thai politicians about Gaza, too.
Is it abduction or capture?
January 5, 2026: This is the question of the hour, although many people already have the answer.
It’s not just the most important legal question. It’s also a massive political issue for the entire world. Reactions, from politicians in powers to social media enthusiasts, range from great concern to downright fear. The majority of the world seems to think that America has set a bad, dangerous precedent, telling all nations that nobody is safe anywhere on earth if the White House brands them threats to whatever, that no sovereignty will be honoured if it is used to shield anyone the United States wants to get, and that Washington’s hypocrisy will be the new normal.
What if the US legal system rejects President Donald Trump’s action? Can American police arrest him then? On the contrary, what if the judges say it was all right? Can, for example, Thailand then send troops to kidnap political leaders in a neighboring country accused of supporting scamming networks causing widespread misery among Thais and bring them to court in Bangkok?
Trump has not made America great again. He has made the world afraid of it. This is not greatness. Moreover, what the White House has done mocks the all-too-familiar American preaching against ruling through fears. It can be oppression on the grandest scale.
The United Nations, long accused of being a paper tiger, is facing the biggest challenge less than a week into the New Year. Trump’s action nullifies the very thing the UN was built for and the very stand the US always proclaims it has _ the concept that nations respect one another, and dialogues, not violence, are the right way to go.
Nobel Foundation’s worst mistake(s)
January 4, 2026: When dealing with a potentially uncontrollable man, sometimes you have to forget your principles.
Imagine Donald Trump gets the Nobel Peace Prize. He would have behaved just a little more. Make no mistake, the strike on Venezuela and the capture of its leader would still happen, but Trump would at least have hesitated, which would have bought the world some time.
People say it was good that Trump missed the peace prize, because what he has done to Venezuela would have made it so ironic. This thinking fails to take into account the facts that the award would have calmed him down a little bit, and that a global uproar in case of a Trump win would have been worth it. (An organisation whose name is strongly associated with “peace” like the Nobel Foundation certainly would sacrifice its image if it could prevent a war, wouldn’t it?)
Failing to give him what he wanted is Mistake Number One. Another possible mistake is giving the peace prize to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has declared: “the hour of freedom has arrived”. Well, as controversial and infamous as her main political opponent has been, the explosions in her country’s capital and the manner of his downfall is anything but peaceful. Give her any praise except hailing her as a peace lover.
World public reactions are 99.99% against Trump’s government, and Venezuela’s oil is in every conversation. (This is primarily social media reactions, not official or mainstream media portrayals of the incident.) FIFA, which has just given Trump a “peace prize” that nobody knew the football governing body has, has been hilariously mocked.
It should have been a FIFA red card instead of that, one YouTube comment said.
Contempt or cynicism aside, everyone is extremely worried. Trump is changing the global idea of how the world should function. All people see this developing story as a watershed moment in the history of world order and global perceptions of Trump’s country, which seem to have changed for the worse forever.
Cutthroat politics
January 3, 2026: Can overzealous believers in God and committed atheists live in the same house?
The answer to that simple question answers a more complicated one, of whether Thailand and many other countries, America included, are heading in the right direction.
Irreconcilable differences, they say, must be decided by a show of hands because there is no better way. That is not usually wrong, but it is not always right, either.
Many times, the irreconcilable become more irreconcilable. In other words belligerently divisive. Many times, the show of hands only sweeps the problem under the rug, creating a false impression that everything is now fine. More often than not, hate rhetoric will only increase, because the winner will want to keep the status quo and the loser will be determined to change it. And both will do anything necessary. Every unhealthy act will feed on itself.
In cutthroat politics, elections do not decide who we are and what we want. They only make the elephant in the room bigger. There are words like “revolution” or “anarchy” or “civil wars” to describe what can possibly happen next.
Writer’s note: More arguments against “Us or Them” here.
Age is (not) an issue
January 2, 2026: It’s now the US Democrats’ turn to talk about falling asleep at state functions.
Here’s a big tip for Donald Trump (and/or his publicists): Never ever call world leaders by the wrong names.
Trump’s walking is, as of now, nothing to worry about, but better be prepared than sorry. Trump is the oldest president inaugurated in US history, and his opponents are looking very closely for signs of age that they claim have been showing.
“He has at times appeared to fall asleep in meetings and not be able to hear questions,” said a BBC report, part of a growing coverage scrutinising his age. It’s safe to say that pro-Democrat media were largely apologetic when Joe Biden was accused by the Republicans of appearing like a dementia grandpa in public as the former president kept stumbling before cameras, saying wrong names, remembering incorrect years, dozing off on the table and eating ice cream with a bit too much eagerness.
The pro-Biden media could not help him during an infamous 2024 presidential debate with Trump, though. The incumbent Democrat, about 81 then, looked frozen a few times while giving answers, and even rivals were holding their breaths for him. That resulted in an unprecedented change of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. The rest is history.
Now, it’s Trump, 79, who is facing the mocking, the intensity of which will only grow because he’s not getting any younger.
On today’s BBC homepage, his interview with The Wall Street Journal was reported. And guess what, what was highlighted had nothing to do with Ukraine, or the American economy, or the immigration, or the Medicare. Here’s the BBC headline: Trump says his health is ‘perfect’ amid aging concerns.
So, if you believe Trump, age is not an issue. If you are on the other side, it definitely is.
But both camps have to agree that nobody is too old to declare a war.
Human rights
January 1, 2026: There are those who suffer in silence and there are those who play the victim.
The second type always gets all the constant headlines, everlasting sympathy from “human rights advocates” and messages of support from holier-than-thou governments. The first are too busy trying to save their own lives, crying over the dead bodies of their loved ones, or mourning their destroyed properties to bring their plights out to the public.
It is actually not hard to tell who is what type, but this world has been conditioned to encourage playing the victim and pay less attention to, say, the children and women of Gaza.
“Human rights” is one of the most recited words in political rhetoric, locally and globally, and it also can be the most abused word used to cover-up or overshadow real violations of human rights somewhere. This explains multiple standards of advocacy individuals or groups or even some in the media who would immediately jump out to decry “verbal devaluation” while conveniently ignoring or giving lukewarm attention to Muslim children whose arms are torn out or legs are ripped off in a war they have nothing to do with, or the inaccessibility of medicines that the world can make but the poor cannot get.
Even some of the curious “victims” themselves would not say a word about the killings and maiming in other parts of the world that actually pale their predicaments. Why? Because of the one thing that ideally has no business in the protection of human rights, but, in reality, it is the biggest influencer of what should be played up and what should be played down. Conflict of interest.
By all current indications, 2026 has started with a big challenge on its hand.
Daily updates of, and opinions on, local and international issues by Tulsathit Taptim.
